Hi,
On Sep 30, 2009, at 18:09 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> I am not particularly comfortable with skipping CR#2 especially
> since we have no way of knowing who is actually implementing our
> published CR, in particular the normative Conformance Checker
> requirements that will presumably be removed from the spec. As such,
> I prefer publishing CR#2 since it sends a clear signal to any
> implementor the July CR is superseded.
>
> Additionally, given the mandatory 2-month exclusion period that will
> start upon LC#3's publication, it appears the "short route" i.e.
> skipping CR#2 won't actually save us any time. That is, during that
> same amount of time we can a) publish LC#3 (3 weeks) and b) publish
> CR#2 with a relatively short CR (e.g. 4 weeks).
I think that this much makes sense.
> A rough schedule would then be: during the Nov 2-3 f2f meeting agree
> to all changes for LC#3; November 10 LC#3 is published and Exclusion
> period begins; December 1 LC#3 ends; Dec 9 CR#2 is published;
> January 5 CR#2 ends as does the Exclusion period; mid January
> publish PR.
This is the part that I'm not sure I understand. Do we really need to
wait until the F2F to agree to the changes that need to be made? My
understanding is that Marcos has almost integrated all of them, and
also that we believe we now have a level of review way above anything
we had before. Why not just go into LC#3 next week, and hit CR#2 at
the F2F?
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/